On 2006-05-21, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> __/ [ Sinister Midget ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 15:11 \__
>> On 2006-05-21, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted
>> something concerning:
>>> On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:50:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Intersting nugget of information from alt.www.webmaster:
>>>> __/ [ Gordon Hudson ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 10:21 \__
>>>>> Microsft pays hosts to move to Windows.
>>>>> Usually its very cheap or free licensing for a period plus paying part
>>>>> or all of their advertising budget, allowing them to make virtually 100%
>>>>> profit for several years.
>>>>> I have even heard of them paying the hardware bill for one host.
>>> So now unverifiable hearsay from newsgroups is "newsworthy"?
>> You always expect us to take unverifiable (and outright provably wrong)
>> meterial from you constantly. And you even run away when asked to
>> provide simple links to back your "facts" much of the time.
> Gordon went further and replied to me with the following:
> ___/ [ Gordon Hudson ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 14:07 \__
>> If they offered me the sort of deal they have offered other hosts it would
>> be very difficult to resist simply because of the potential amount of money
>> The only thing that would hold me back from doing it is my previous
>> experience with Windows in a shared hosting environment, which was not,
>> good, reliable or scaleable.
>> The main problem was getting the different bits of software to talk to each
>> Because they were closed source you couldn't do it very easily.
These types of things are known universally. A handful of people may
not experience the same problems. A large number will waste a gawdawful
amount of time getting it to work and think nothing of it because they
view it as "normal". But most will experience some form of the program
interaction, scalability and reliability problem whether they realize
it for what it is or no.
As for Ewik's gripe, what's mentioned in the OP has been shown to be
the MO of the crooked monopoly in more than one business angle. He
wanted to pick at this particular one just because he viewed it as
something easy to pick at. But his bitch can only work if he isn't
constantly guilty of doing what he's trying to claim the post was all
about. He gives blogs as support for a number of his specious claims,
then complains whenever somebody else uses something no more (though
often /much/ more) and no less (often can't be any less) credible.
It's marked "news" because of your previously stated reasons. If he
doesn't like that, he can filter on based on that and be quiet.
Better yet, he could go to Windwoes help groups and fool those people
into thinking he knows things, and offer cut'n'paste solutions or hokey
"fixes" for problems people are having with his "secure", "stable"
Winders platform. Some of the MVPs do precisely that in a couple of
If God did not intend for us to eat animals, then why did he
make them out of meat?
-- John Cleese